1. A new worker was killed as he cleaned behind a hamburger stove at a fast food restaurant.

An
investigation into his death revealed that the underside of the cable connected to the hamburger cooker
had worn away exposing a 12-mm length of one live conductor. The worker died after touching the
worn cable with cord.
During the investigation another cable attached to the adjacent cooker was found to be worn.

 Identify the hazards in this article.

- Electric Hazard
- Safety Hazard
- Ergonomic Hazard
- Temperature Hazard
- Physical Hazard
- Work Associated Hazard (effects of shift work or him being a new employee)

 List factors that may have contributed to this incident.

- The 12 mm live conductor
- The another worn cable found
- The stress he get from his work
- Improper Workstation
- Extreme heat he get from the stove
- Limited light at the underside of the stove

 List control measures that may have prevented this incident.

- A pre-checking of the stove before cleaning
- Proper uniform in cleaning a stove (like rubber gloves)
- Proper lighting of the whole workstation
- A perfectly conditioned worker
- A good ventilation in the workstation

 Explain who you think would be held responsible for this incident.
- For me, I have a 50-50 judgment where both the worker and the management are
at fault, for they both have their own flaws and contribution to how the accident
happened.

 Describe your reactions to this case study.

- I guess the accident wouldn’t happen at first if the machine is in a perfectly good
condition where, no live wires are exposed. And if they tried to repair it before and
didn’t notice what happen then, it would be better if the employee was informed
before he deals with that stove, so that he would have a clue of what is the
condition of the stove and what he should look into. And also for the worker who
was trained and I guess, provided a complete uniform for the job, should have a
sense of what he is doing and what precautionary measure he should do if he saw a
live wire. And if he at least saw any faulty machinery at work or something that
makes him uncomfortable in any way, he should have said it to the management for
proper actions. And maybe a day to day check up is needed before the work starts.
2. An employee had his leg amputated as a result of his leg being caught in the cutting blades of an
unguarded machine. At the time of the incident the worker was attempting to clear a blockage that had
caused the machine to stop.

 Identify the hazards in this article.

- Safety Hazard
- Ergonomic Hazard
- Temperature Hazard
- Physical Hazard
- Work Associated Hazard

 List factors that may have contributed to this incident.

- The unguarded machine
- No signage (lockout-tagout)
- Work stress
- Confined space
- The temperature inside the machinery
- Manual handling procedure

 List control measures that may have prevented this incident.

- If the machine is guarded or at least has a lackout-tagout sign
- Perfectly conditioned worker
- Proper handling of the machinery
- Proper cleaning procedure
- If they think of another way on cleaning the machine to lessen the hazard

 Explain who you think would be held responsible for this incident.
- The worker who cleaned the machine, for he didn’t follow the proper procedure in
cleaning a machine particularly one with cutting blades.

 Describe your reactions to this case study.

- For me, the person/cleaner was trained or briefed before he cleans machine or
entering a confine space. But I guess, he ignore the proper procedure and just
cleans it without putting up a sign(lockout-tagout) or even asking someone to guard
it for him before entering the machine. And also the machine is considered as a
confined space where anyone who enters it should be knowledgeable enough to
know what are the do’s and don’ts. And also before he enters the machine, he
should have thought of a way to clean it a different way where the possible hazard
will lessen.
3. A leading car manufacturer pleaded not guilty to charges arising from an industrial accident in which a
teenager's arm was ripped off. Investigations revealed that the new worker was not informed of the risk
associated with the conveyor belt, which severed his arm.

The 19-year-old worker had only been at work for three days. He had lost his glove from his right hand
behind the conveyor belt and reached in to retrieve it. Previous inspections before the incident
identified risks associated with the machine. The manufacturer faced $25, 000 in fines for not providing
and maintaining machine guards. The company provided safety training only during induction - a video
and pamphlets.

 Identify the hazards in this article.

- Physical Hazard
- Safety Hazard
- Work Associated Hazard
- Ergonomic Hazard

 List factors that may have contributed to this incident.

- A new worker and might not be used to the job
- Lack of training from the management (the video and pamphlet is not enough it
should be hand in hand or in contact with the machine itself)
- Inappropriate or lack of proper uniform
- Manual Handling Procedure

 List control measures that may have prevented this incident.

- A proper training with the machine itself
- Appropriate Uniform with some extras like gloves
- The worker should have think of another way on how to retrieve his gloves back
without risking his arm
- The management should have informed the worker beforehand of the possible rixk
he might face.

 Explain who you think would be held responsible for this incident.
- For me, I have a 75-25 judgment for the management and the worker. Because each
of them has their own obligations on how things to be done and should be done.

 Describe your reactions to this case study.

- For this case, I would say that the management is the one to blamed on how the
accident happened, because first, they only gave a video and a pamphlet for the
training of their employees where they should have not done, for they should let
the worker train with the machine itself so that they would have the feel on how to
handle it. Second, they should have informed the worker beforehand on what are
the possible risks or hazards he will be facing with operating the machine/conveyor
belt. And lastly, the management should have provided some extra uniforms (like
gloves) in case of such situation emerge. But the worker is at fault too, for he didn’t
think of any way or ask the management on how he should handle the situation he
have faced, and did his means right away, resulting to an unfortunate incident.